Vol. 402 No. 10
8 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will extend the carer's allowance to people who provide care and attention to sufferers of multiple sclerosis and other similar disabilities and are under the present qualifying age.
21 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that certain categories of pensioners are excluded from qualification under the new carer's allowance scheme; and if he will now include them.
32 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will extend the carer's allowance to those who cater for elderly relatives on a full-time basis and who do not live in the same house as the cared-for relatives, as their exclusion is causing great hardship.
I propose to take Questions Nos 8, 21 and 32 together.
The new carer's scheme which I announced recently provides that a carer's allowance is payable, subject to a means test, to persons providing full-time care and attention to incapacitated persons who are in receipt of certain specified social welfare payments. This new scheme represents a major improvement on the existing prescribed relative's allowance. For the first time a married person dependent on his or her spouse may qualify as a carer, the spouse of a pensioner may also qualify and a carer who is not a relative of the pensioner is also eligible.
A full-time carer who lives with and looks after a social welfare pensioner needing full-time care and attention may qualify for the new allowance. The carer must be at least 18 years of age and must not be engaged in employment outside the home. He or she must satisfy a means test and must be able to demonstrate that they are in a position to provide full-time care and attention.
The scheme applies at present to social welfare pensioners who are so disabled or invalided as to require full-time care and attention. Carers of persons who are suffering from disabilities and are in receipt of invalidity pension may qualify for the allowance. The question of extending the scheme to other categories of disabled persons will be considered in the light of the financial implications.
One of the conditions which must be satisfied by the carer is that he-she must be in a position to provide full-time care and attention for the relevant pensioner. It is a condition of the scheme, therefore, that the carer resides with the pensioner being cared for. The allowance may also be payable where the pensioner is residing in the carer's home. The condition that the carer must reside with the pensioner is consistent with the provision that the carer is in a position to provide full-time care and attention for the pensioner.
This new scheme broadens substantially the range of people who can qualify for a payment and I am convinced that it represents a major improvement in our social welfare services in so far as they affect the old and the infirm. Any further extension of the scheme to include carers who are not residing with the pensioner or additional categories of pensioner would also have cost implications and would have to be considered in a budgetary context.
The Minister's reply is long and detailed. Does he not agree that there are thousands of people who are not pensioners and who suffer from multiple sclerosis and other disabilities and that there are carers who cannot engage in gainful employment because they are looking after these people on a full-time basis, and providing thereby a major service for the community, in the same way as carers looking after disabled pensioners? There is a major gap in the scheme and we would plead with the Minister to look at it again in the light of the forthcoming Estimates.
The Deputy is aware of my concern. We have set up a new scheme but nobody knows yet what the figures will be. Estimates are made and an allocation of money is given on that basis. Provision has been included in the legislation to enable me to extend that scheme to people who are in receipt of disabled person's maintenance allowance. I am Minister for Social Welfare and it is not under my administrative control. It is a matter for the Minister for Health. Not-withstanding that, it was agreed that I would take that power within the legislation. The Deputy can be assured that I am very concerned about it and I will certainly give it attention.
Has the Minister had any discussions with his colleague at the Department of Health with a view to making progress on this matter? There was no shortage of congratulations for the Minister during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill when we thought the recipients of DPMA were to be included immediately. Has he had any meetings in relation to implementing this measure? What about other categories of pensioners? It is entirely confined to social welfare pensioners at present. What about State pensioners who have marginally more or marginally less money but who are not in the right category? What about pensioners from other EC countries? Already a number of them have been in touch with me whose parents were abroad for some time.
Clearly the Deputy wishes to extend the scope of the question out of all proportion.
It relates very specifically to Question No. 21 in the name of Deputy Taylor-Quinn.
These are extensions of the scheme and can be considered in the course of the development of that scheme, which is totally new. We have been receiving applications during the past two weeks and we will have to see how it progresses. In relation to the DPMA, I have had discussions with the Minister for Health and we are having further discussions at official level. It is a matter about which I share the concern expressed by Deputies and I will be giving it attention.
Has the Minister received the pre-budget submission from the Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped? They have a specific submission in relation to people in receipt of DPMA, particularly those who are incapacitated.
It is another question. I met them at the beginning of this week at the forum which was held. The purpose was to receive the submissions of the various groups and to discuss them collectively. We may meet them separately afterwards. We discussed the various priorities and this is one which they regard as very important.
The Chair wishes to make much more progress at Questions today. It is very sluggish. I desire very much to expedite matters.
The Minister has given very long replies and this has slowed up the process.
The Chair has no control over the Minister's replies.
It would appear that the Minister has good intentions but not enough money. Would he not agree that there is a glaring anomaly created by the restricted scheme he has introduced whereby recipients of DPMA are excluded? The washing of hands by this Minister because some other Minister has responsibility ignores the fact that he is a member of the Cabinet where there is collective responsibility. Will he indicate that he will include DPMA in this restricted category?
DPMA is the responsibility of another Minister.
I welcome Deputy Stagg and wish him all the best on his first day as spokesman for social welfare. Deputy Ferris has been a very constructive contributor on social welfare and I wish him all the best with his new responsibilities. Deputy Stagg has a lot to learn yet about how these things are done in practice. We get approval for certain expenditure, we make certain changes in the legislation and hope to make further progress in a budgetary context. It is the only context in which we can get additional money.
